The Joint Zoo/Recreation and Parks Committee described the San Francisco Zoo as “unsafe for the animals and visitors” in a report presented at a meeting on Oct. 10.
The committee agreed to contact zoo management, and the committee’s animal welfare advisors met with activists. On Aug. 15, animal welfare advisers Joe Spinelli and Jane Tobin took a tour of the zoo along with Animal Commission Chair Michael Angelo Torres and Justin Barker of SF Zoo Watch.
The group detailed its observations in the recent report, saying it saw animals lacking enrichment while in their enclosures. The team suggested that many habitats could benefit from modernization and redesign.
“Parts of the zoo are best described as dilapidated,” the report reads. “From a visitor’s perspective, it is uninspiring.”
The Epoch Times reached out to the San Francisco Zoo and the mayor’s office for comment but did not hear back by publication time.
The report cites growing calls from animal welfare activists to cancel the panda plan, pointing to concerns about sustainability, budget, and a need to prioritize current animals in the zoo.
The cases listed include malfunctioning equipment, stolen animals, animals attacking each other and killing a person, and unsafe habitats leading to animal deaths.
The organization has helped collect more than 14,000 signatures in support of calling off the plan to host pandas. It also urged the zoo to replace its current chief executive officer and focus on the well-being of existing animals and staff before welcoming the pair of pandas, a project it says could cost $70 million over 10 years.
“The zoo is struggling to care for its current residents, and it is outrageous that new animals would be brought into such an environment,” said Brittany Michelson, campaign specialist for captive animals at In Defense of Animals.
The committee report states that the zoo meets safety requirements set by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Association of Zoos and Aquariums but that the safety measures taken to meet those requirements are minimal.
However, the commission’s report did highlight the lemur exhibit as an “exemplary habitat,” describing it as a “model that the Zoo should use in all habitat design and animal enrichment.”
The enclosure was praised for having trees, being large enough for the lemurs to play and explore, and mimicking the animals’ natural habitat without chain links.
In contrast, the temporary exhibit housing langurs was highlighted as a “poor habitat” due to the use of chain links and metal bars. According to the report, while these primates are enriched through food scavenging activities, the enclosure was viewed as “a jail from a visitor’s perspective.”
In addition to various recommendations for individual habitats and overall improvement, the commission also offered five main criteria for exhibits to allow animals to thrive. These include providing enough space, having an indoor area for animals to retreat from human view, being visually pleasant for visitors, giving opportunities for animal behavioral enrichment, and cleanliness and safety.
